Abd Alrahman Al-Mousa petitions for review of the Board of Immigration Appeals’ (BIA) opinion that affirmed the decision of the Immigration Judge (IJ) denying him asylum and withholding of removal. He contends that the IJ erred in finding his testimony not credible, that he established past persecution by the Syrian government, and that he has a well-founded fear of persecution if he is forced to return to Syria. As Al-Mousa does not challenge the IJ’s denial of his application for withholding of removal, that issue is deemed abandoned. See Calderon-Ontiveros v. INS, 809 F.2d 1050, 1052 (5th Cir. 1986).

We review the IJ’s decision because the BIA summarily affirmed without opinion and essentially adopted the IJ’s decision. See Efe v. Ashcroft, 293 F.3d 899, 903 (5th Cir. 2002). We will uphold the IJ’s determination that Al-Mousa is not eligible for asylum if it is supported by substantial evidence. Faddoul v. INS, 37 F.3d 185, 188 (5th Cir. 1994); see 8 U.S.C. § 1105a(a)(4) (1970). To reverse the IJ’s determination that Al-Mousa is not eligible for asylum, he must demonstrate the evidence was so compelling that no reasonable factfinder could conclude against it. Chun v. INS, 40 F.3d 76, 78 (5th Cir. 1994). We will not “review decisions turning purely on the [IJ’s] assessment of the alien petitioner’s credibility.” Chun, 40 F.3d at 78 (quotation and citation omitted).

After careful review of the briefs and the administrative record, we hold that a reasonable adjudicator would not be compelled to conclude that Al-Mousa established past persecution in connection with the 1982 killings in Hama. Moreover, we will not disturb the IJ’s finding that AlMousa’s other assertions of past persecution and his assertion of fear of future persecution were incredible. See Chun, 40 F.3d at 78.

PETITION DENIED.